Follow the recent trend for the license description, and also fix the
wrongly stated X11 to MIT.
As already pointed on the DT ML, the X11 license text [1] is explicitly
for the X Consortium and has a couple of extra clauses. The MIT
license text [2] is actually what the current DT files claim.
[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/X11.html
[2] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>
As was done with Armada XP, add node labels to Armada 38x common and SoC
specific nodes to make them easier to reference in board device trees.
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
This SoC belongs to the Armada 38x family. The main difference with
the Armada 385 is that the 388 can handle two more SATA
ports. Currently the consequence is the use of a different compatible
string for the pinctrl node, in order to be able to use the pins
associated to this 2 new SATA ports. The second SATA controller has
also been moved from the armada38x.dtsi as it it specific to the
Armada388 version.
In the same time the Armada385 DB and Armada 385 RD board have been
renamed in the 388 one and now include the armada-388.dtsi file. AS
both of them have 4 SATA ports the SoC used on them were wrongly
described.
Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
